You did more or less.Strawman again. No one said you wish death on anyone. Or maybe you just don't read for comprehension like I said.
Why would you?Do you understand that in your first sentence you equate both "Prevention in your life" and "prevention in the government" to "not at all reliable". Let me ask the silly question: if they are both "not at all reliable", why wouldn't I treat them the same?
You equated prevention in your life to prevention in the government. I understood it perfectly. Calling me stupid is not helpful to you.I can sort of understand if you gloss over my posts and don't comprehend what I write, but do you also gloss over your own posts too?
I'm not claiming anything. I'm telling you it is not.So you are claiming the US does not have democracy?
So back to square one. After contradicting what everyone can see was your thinking so far (you want the government to provide only what you think ought to be provided by the government and begrudge the taxes you think are paid for what others want) you now go back and confirm it. Don't you get tired of contradicting and repeating yourself?
I made it perfectly clear what needs to be provided for everyone and what I want is not the same thing.
Protecting of rights and liberties generally comes with punishing of violations. It has nothing to do with what I want and everything to do with logic.You are just filled with fallacies. Let's examine your strawman - what if I go to the opposite extreme of "forcing people to do what I wish" - i.e. absolute freedom? Is it moral that we force people to have a driver license before they can drive? Is it moral that we punish people who want to shout fire in a public confined space? Is it moral that we put criminals in jail and curtail their freedom as a result?
The other two are you just projecting on me.
Explain your logic if you don't mind then. Where does this responsibility naturally come from? If you haven't noticed it doesn't exist outside of man made creation.Yes, I do as my post made clear. And you are just repeating it without any counter arguement whatsoever.
Mine are based on how the word actually works on how people actually think. Yours are based on how the world should work, on how people should work. Aka baseless bull**** as I said.As I have said, and I'll repeat again: That is because you think that it's okay to let someone die who can't pay for the healthcare. And you don't seem to comprehend that you are as subjective as I am, whereas I'm very attuned to that fact and made clear from the beginning that it's my views, subjective to me. You keep repeating that it's my view, but you don't seem to understand what that means.
My argument doesn't ignore how it is current but simply says that the system needs to change to end that connection.My morality is base on my reality and value as yours are. I think the problem with your position is both to do with reality and values - as I've said in my original post. You believe that it's not your problem when someone fails to buy insurance, it's their problem. That ignores the reality of how the system currently works.
Until you can show me where these morals come from and not just ramble on about nothing related I will continue to say they are baseless.The fact that it affects you the tax payer and potential healthcare user in many ways: when they seek charity care, that is paid with tax money. If they don't seek charity care, and own the bill to the hospital, as Ron Paul campaign manager did (his family still have not paid the bill) the hospital covers that loss by charging more for the services. We know what your values are regarding society. What my value are regarding society I've stated in my original post. So you are immoral to me, and I think to DA and Paul too who could not bring themselves to say that it's okay to let someone die who can't pay for their healthcare. My reality is not baseless, they are backed up with factual examples and solid reasonings which you have not been able to refute in anyway.